Justice Committee on June 12th, 2013

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Amendment PV-8 is to the same effect as amendment PV-7—I'll go back to it—which was to reduce the amount of time that appears in the bill from 36 months to 12 months.

I apologize for getting ahead of myself. I'll try to make it really interesting when we get to amendment PV-9 next time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That sounds good.

Monsieur Goguen, do you wish to speak to PV-8?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We'd be opposing this motion, Mr. Chair, for the same reasons as given for the two previous motions, amendments NDP-7 and PV-7.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further on amendment PV-8?

Yes, Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I want to point out that with all of the amendments, when we look at the proposed sections or subsections they're trying to amend, these are optional things for a board, not mandatory.

We had a witness suggest today that these things would mandatorily kick in for 36 months. They don't. They only kick in when the accused's condition is not likely to improve and the detention remains necessary for the period of extension. The bill is giving more flexibility to the board to make those kinds of determinations, and these amendments seek to give less.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on amendment PV-8?

(Amendment negatived)

Next is amendment NDP-8.

Monsieur Mai.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

This is the same argument as we made for amendment NDP-7. The goal is to change the period from 36 months to 24 months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything further?

Monsieur Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We oppose it for the same reasons as we did the three previous.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That sounds reasonable.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 15 agreed to)

(On clause 16)

We are on amendment PV-9, Madam May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Assuming you all have a very good memory, I won't repeat what I said earlier about amendment PV-9, except to add these other points.

At the point at which a determination has been made by the review board that, based on all the available evidence, the high-risk accused no longer meets that definition and that the person is in fact no longer considered high-risk accused, the current Bill C-54 drafting would refer the formerly high-risk accused person back to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.

There is an interesting legal point here, because there will be no criminal charges active at that point. There will not be any criminal court seized of the matter, whereas the review board has the expertise, has just reviewed the complex information, and has made a determination, as the act requires, based on all the available information involving expert assessments, that it is satisfied that there is not a substantial likelihood that the accused, whether the high-risk accused “will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person”.

At that point, it is both, as I mentioned earlier, an unnecessary expense and unnecessary cost of the court's time, unnecessarily repetitious. In fact it asks the court to be seized of something for which there are no current criminal charges. I therefore strongly recommend that we revert, as I propose in amendment PV-9, to the review board itself making the determination and not referring it further to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Ms. May.

I'm going to rule on this one.

On clause 16, Bill C-54 provides that the review board in some cases refer the finding for review to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction. The goal of the proposed amendment PV-9 is to give full power to the review board.

Then, referring to page 766 again, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment PV-9 attempts to give full power to the review board in cases where the power to review belongs to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction, and is therefore inadmissible. This ruling also applies to amendment PV-10.

Is anybody challenging the chair on that? Seeing none, that's looked after, then.

Amendment PV-10 is inadmissible based on the ruling I just made.

Shall clause 16 carry? All those in favour?

(Clause 16 agreed to)

(Clause 17 agreed to)

(On clause 18)

On clause 18, we have amendment Liberal-12.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would require the Attorney General to consult annually with the relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies about the implementation of the NCR regime. The Attorney General would also be required to table an annual report on these consultations.

Mr. Chairman, one of my biggest concerns with Bill C-54 is that we might well run out of space in provincial treatment facilities. As witnesses testified, overcrowding not only impacts on treatment, but it also reduces public safety which, after all, is a paramount consideration underpinning this legislation. Moreover, overcrowding also raises serious charter concerns. Particularly also, as I've noted, NCR-accused have not been found guilty of any offence.

As such, to ensure that the NCR regime is being implemented effectively, consultation with the provinces are necessary and ought to be mandated in statute. We ought not to create burdens on the provinces without assistance, and thus this mechanism helps to ensure that capacity and resources to implement the system are in place and working.

I might add, Mr. Chair, and I close with this, that effectively, this amendment seeks to secure the very objective that the legislation itself seeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, thank you.

Monsieur Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We're not prepared to support this motion. The Department of Justice already has an internal federal-provincial-territorial process that provides an opportunity for direct feedback on a broad range of issues relating to the Criminal Code. The motion may have an unintended consequence of binding our provincial and territorial counterparts to take part in a consultation that they may not have the desire nor the resources to participate in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Does anyone have anything further to add to amendment Liberal-12?

Seeing none, all those in favour?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 18 agreed to)

(Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to)

We'll now go to a new clause 20.1—is that all right?—a new clause based on amendments.

There's a new clause being created. The first amendment we have on this is amendment Liberal-13.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment mandates a comprehensive review of the NCR regime by a parliamentary committee within five years of Bill C-54 coming into force, and the committee would submit a report to Parliament within a year of the review. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Bill C-54 makes significant changes to the NCR regime and concerns have been raised by experts about the possibility that these changes may have unintended consequences—even some of those in favour of the legislation made reference to this. As such, it would be incumbent upon Parliament to consider the impact of this legislation in the medium and the long term so as to understand whether it had the desired result, or whether refinements are necessary.

I hope we can have a consensus around this table to have a review conducted and the reports prepared on this point to ensure that the legislation is operating as envisaged by the government and the proponents of this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Before we move to Mr. Goguen on this, I'll let our friends from the NDP know that if amendment Liberal-13 actually passes, it will null and void amendment NDP-9. If it fails, I'll ask you to introduce amendment NDP-9. If not, it will be withdrawn, because it's basically the same thing with some small differences. That's how it will work.

We'll put you on the speakers' list if you want to speak to it, but Monsieur Goguen is first.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I don't want Mr. Mai to get the wrong idea, but I like Mr. Cotler's idea. I think we're going to support it because it makes sense to periodically review such important amendments to see if they're hitting the mark, so we're prepared to support Mr. Cotler's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Wow, okay, great.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I don't know what to do now.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

My streak of rejected amendments has been broken.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Mai.